20 replies to this topic

[THE MATRIX]

http://www.alternet....ge_?page=entire

Quote

We all have in our mind’s eye the classic image of a preacher raising the Bible in hand and declaring that something is true because it is written in the Bible, the unchallengeable word of God. And, it is not just preachers. Lay people often spout the same attitude.
When commenting on some public issue, devout believers frequently write letters to the editor expressing their confidence in the Bible and its prescription for how that issue must be understood. If it is in the Bible, it must be true.
Yet, over the centuries, this attitude has led to advocacy of slavery, segregation of the races, subordination of women and corporal punishment for children. It was only when these Biblical teachings were set aside that justice prevailed.
The latest such challenge to Biblical fundamentalism is the debate about same-sex marriage. Those who continue to insist on Biblical standards say the Bible should be the final word on who should marry and how.
Many of those Biblical passages are found in the book of Leviticus, which prescribed religious practices of the ancient Israelites dating back several centuries before the birth of Christ. In Leviticus, the place of women – and the institution of marriage – is set out as a part of the property codes.
Women were property, and men were owners of women. Indeed, a man could own as many women as he could afford. Polygamy was the standard, not monogamy.
Men owned women in three categories: they owned wives; they owned concubines; and they owned slaves. All were available to the owner for his sexual use. Most of the women involved were little more than breeding stock. These standards were prevalent all over the Middle East and reflect Mesopotamian and Babylonian traditions.

[Armchair Educated]

Has this glorified blogger even read the bible, he lacks a knowledge of the jewish people. All of the bad things people have done in the name of god, have been done by people who are not christians by the bibles standards. I have no problem with homosexual marriges, if two people want to get married its up to them ( obviously not in christian churches, not that homosexuals would want to)
Slavery in the bible is missinterpreted as slavery but is actually more like long term contracted work. The slavery that the bible is being accused of is a form of slavery made popular in the westen world called Chattelism. slaves in the bible could have familys, have enough money to live on, buy and sell property and could choose to leave there masters after seven years and if the slave didnt want to leave, the master had to take him back. Biblical characters also made some slaves there heirs when they had no sons.
Women are not property  and the jewish people dont believe this either. Just because bad things happen in the bible, it doesnt mean god approves of them. when read in context, this will become clear. If any one wants to bad mouth the bible they should start by reading it from beggining to end. No one wants a uninformed review of the bible. much love to every one, sorry for ranting and have a nice day

[Rlyeh]

Ever Learning, on 21 June 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

Has this glorified blogger even read the bible

Have you?

Quote

Slavery in the bible is missinterpreted as slavery but is actually more like long term contracted work.

How many jobs have you had where your boss could beat you? Or give you a wife, and any children produced is his property?

Quote

Women are not property  and the jewish people dont believe this either.

That's why unlike men, women slaves could not leave their masters. Totally not property.

Please don't talk **** by pretending slavery in the Bible is just honorable contract work.

Edited by Rlyeh, 21 June 2012 - 09:17 PM.

[Paranoid Android]

Rlyeh, on 21 June 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Please don't talk **** by pretending slavery in the Bible is just honorable contract work.

Neither is it the equivalent of the African-American slave trade that most think of when the word "slavery" is uttered in modern society.  Tell me, what are your thoughts on doctors?  Or police officers?  I ask because these jobs were carried out by the slaves.  I'm not going to say slavery in the ancient Near East was a perfect system, but it really was much closer to contractual hiring than the African-American slave trade.  People often sold themselves into slavery because their life was better in slavery than out of slavery.  Some masters were cruel, that was an unfortunate matter.  However, there were also kind masters who treated their slaves well, and after the time of their slavery was complete (slavery was not a lifelong thing for many) a slave would often choose to remain serving their master anyway.

[Seeker79]

Paranoid Android, on 22 June 2012 - 04:20 AM, said:

Neither is it the equivalent of the African-American slave trade that most think of when the word "slavery" is uttered in modern society.  Tell me, what are your thoughts on doctors?  Or police officers?  I ask because these jobs were carried out by the slaves.  I'm not going to say slavery in the ancient Near East was a perfect system, but it really was much closer to contractual hiring than the African-American slave trade.  People often sold themselves into slavery because their life was better in slavery than out of slavery.  Some masters were cruel, that was an unfortunate matter.  However, there were also kind masters who treated their slaves well, and after the time of their slavery was complete (slavery was not a lifelong thing for many) a slave would often choose to remain serving their master anyway.

It's a matter of curancy not labels. I consider many people that I know slaves.. And they don't even know it.  That's the worst kind of slavery.

[Armchair Educated]

Rlyeh, on 21 June 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Have you?

How many jobs have you had where your boss could beat you? Or give you a wife, and any children produced is his property?

That's why unlike men, women slaves could not leave their masters. Totally not property.

Please don't talk **** by pretending slavery in the Bible is just honorable contract work.

Rlyeh, on 21 June 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Have you?

How many jobs have you had where your boss could beat you? Or give you a wife, and any children produced is his property?

That's why unlike men, women slaves could not leave their masters. Totally not property.

Please don't talk **** by pretending slavery in the Bible is just honorable contract work.

I have read the bible from start till finish as well as many other religious books. if you think i haven't and think you can argue with the things ive said , back up your accusations with quotes from the bible. im willing to try to debate whats written in the bible.
Workers didn't have rights in those days, you shouldn't paint them with the same brush you do your self. People have fought for the rights they have today and the rules for the working class in the bible were an improvement to the norm. There may of been bad bosses in the bible but that doesn't mean they were living by the rules of the bible.
Women wouldn't leave men as the world was not as civilized as it is now, if women fear walking down dark alleys now, just imagine what it was like when men were a law unto them self's. Please give me quotes where these bad things happened in the bible, so it doesn't just seem like your trolling

If you would like to know about the slavery in the bible i would advise a book by Isaac Alan called
Is Slavery Sanctioned by the Bible?

[eight bits]

PA

Quote

However, there were also kind masters who treated their slaves well, and after the time of their slavery was complete (slavery was not a lifelong thing for many) a slave would often choose to remain serving their master anyway.

You do realize that that very claim that was advanced on behalf of African-American slavery? It ought to have a familiar ring to it, since it is also advanced on behalf of other forced exploitation. For example, rape. She asked for it, and she enjoyed it. Same argument. Same BS.

[Armchair Educated]

eight bits, on 22 June 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

PA



You do realize that that very claim that was advanced on behalf of African-American slavery? It ought to have a familiar ring to it, since it is also advanced on behalf of other forced exploitation. For example, rape. She asked for it, and she enjoyed it. Same argument. Same BS.

eight bits, on 22 June 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

PA



You do realize that that very claim that was advanced on behalf of African-American slavery? It ought to have a familiar ring to it, since it is also advanced on behalf of other forced exploitation. For example, rape. She asked for it, and she enjoyed it. Same argument. Same BS.

There many people who said at the time that people were misinterpreting the bible for there own means. here are people from the time of slavery talking about it.


IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE?

If there is one subject which, above all others, may be regarded as of
national interest at the present time, it is the subject of Slavery.
Wherever we go, north or south, east or west, at the fireside, in the
factory, the rail-car or the steamboat, in the state legislatures or the
national Congress, this "ghost that will not down" obtrudes itself. The
strife has involved press, pulpit, and forum alike, and in spite of all
compromises by political parties, and the desperate attempts at
non-committal by religious bodies, it only grows wider and deeper. But the distinctive feature of this, as compared with other questions of

national import, is, that here both parties draw their principal
arguments from the Bible as a common armory of weapons for attack and
defense. On the one side, it is claimed that slavery, as it exists in
the United States, is not a moral evil; that it is an innocent and
lawful relation, as much as that of parent and child, husband and wife,
or any other in society; that the right to buy, sell, and hold men for
purposes of gain, was given by express permission of God, and sanctioned
by Christ and his apostles; that this right is founded on the golden
rule; and says Dr. Shannon of Bacon College, Ky., "I hardly know which
is most unaccountable, the profound ignorance of the Bible, or the
sublimity of cool impudence and infidelity manifested by those who
profess to be Christians; and yet dare affirm that the Book of God gives
no sanction to slaveholding." All these affirmations are fairly summed
up thus: "As slavery was practiced by the patriarchs, received sanction
and legality from God in the Mosaic law, and was not denounced by Christ
and his apostles, it must have been right. If right then, it is so
still; therefore Southern slavery is right."

On the other hand, it is contended that chattel slavery is nowhere
warranted or sanctioned by the Bible, but is totally opposed both to its
spirit and teachings.

It will be the object of the present discussion to determine which of
these opinions is correct.


                      SLAVERY DEFINED.

What, then, is chattel slavery as understood in American law?

1. It is not the relation of wife or child. In one sense a man may be
said to "possess" these; but he can not buy or sell them. These are
natural relations; and he who violates them for the sake of gain is
branded by all as barbarous and criminal.

2. Not the relation of apprentice or minor. This is temporary, having
for its primary object, not the good of the master or guardian, but that
of the apprentice or minor, his education and preparation for acting his
part as a free and independent member of society; but chattelism is
_life_ bondage, for the _sole_ good of the master.

3. Not the relation of service by contract. Here a bond or agreement is
implied, and therefore reciprocal rights, and the mutual power of
dissolution on failure of either in the terms of mutual agreement; but
chattelism ignores and denies the ability of the slave to _make a
contract_.

4. Not serfdom or villeinage. The serf or villein was attached to the
glebe or soil, and could not be severed from it, deprived of his family,
or sold to another as a chattel; being retained as part of the
indivisible feudal community. But the chattel slave is a "thing"
incapable of family relations, and may be sold when, where, or how the
master pleases.

[Rlyeh]

Ever Learning, on 22 June 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

I have read the bible from start till finish as well as many other religious books. if you think i haven't and think you can argue with the things ive said , back up your accusations with quotes from the bible. im willing to try to debate whats written in the bible.

Exodus 21:4
But if his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall remain the master's property and the man shall leave alone.

Exodus 21:7
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do.

Exodus 21:20
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.
21 If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.


What were you saying about slaves not being the master's property?

Quote

Workers didn't have rights in those days, you shouldn't paint them with the same brush you do your self.

Maybe you shouldn't be calling them contract workers when they're not?

Quote

People have fought for the rights they have today and the rules for the working class in the bible were an improvement to the norm. There may of been bad bosses in the bible but that doesn't mean they were living by the rules of the bible. Women wouldn't leave men as the world was not as civilized as it is now, if women fear walking down dark alleys now, just imagine what it was like when men were a law unto them self's. Please give me quotes where these bad things happened in the bible, so it doesn't just seem like your trolling

So you're comparing cruel conditions with even crueler ones, and coming to the conclusion they had it pretty good. That's some sick reasoning.

Edited by Rlyeh, 22 June 2012 - 09:31 AM.

[Armchair Educated]

Rlyeh, on 22 June 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Exodus 21:4
But if his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall remain the master's property and the man shall leave alone.

Exodus 21:7
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do.

Exodus 21:20
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.
21 If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.


What were you saying about slaves not being the master's property?

Maybe you shouldn't be calling them contract workers when they're not?

So you're comparing cruel conditions with even crueler ones, and coming to the conclusion they had it pretty good. That's some sick reasoning.

Rlyeh, on 22 June 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Exodus 21:4
But if his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall remain the master's property and the man shall leave alone.

Exodus 21:7
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do.

Exodus 21:20
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.
21 If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.


What were you saying about slaves not being the master's property?

Maybe you shouldn't be calling them contract workers when they're not?

So you're comparing cruel conditions with even crueler ones, and coming to the conclusion they had it pretty good. That's some sick reasoning.

Your exodus quote is out of context, when put in context it makes more sense.

Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
When he says give them a wife he means his own daughter who is his own heir to his property, he offers his daughter because he wants her to have a husband who will stay working for the benefit of the family. if he chooses to leave he cant have the daughter.

Once again your quote is out of context.
(Exodus 21:7-11 ESV)

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

If the slave chooses to divorce his wife he cant sell her as property but has to return her back to her family.


Your quote exodus 20 is also out of context

“Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee. But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die.
“Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.
“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
“Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.
“When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed.
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

yes it seems bad but in the context of what there talking about these things would only happen due to severe crimes.

They are owned by there bosses by contract. they are contracted laborers, some just have ended up in having to do contracted labor because of bad things they have done or debts they have gained.

'So you're comparing cruel conditions with even crueler ones, and coming to the conclusion they had it pretty good. That's some sick reasoning.'
Your logic is messed up. Woman who fought for equal wages wouldnt look down on the woman who fought for the right to vote, just because the latter had achieved more it didn't mean the former weren't ambitious and that the latter would be where they were with out the formers efforts.

[Rlyeh]

Ever Learning, on 22 June 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Your exodus quote is out of context, when put in context it makes more sense.

Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
When he says give them a wife he means his own daughter who is his own heir to his property, he offers his daughter because he wants her to have a husband who will stay working for the benefit of the family. if he chooses to leave he cant have the daughter.

Do you know what out of context means? It means taking selective words from a quote in a way that changes the original meaning. Now show me where I've done this, because all you've done is repeated the same message that the owner keeps the wife and children he gave his slave.

Quote

Once again your quote is out of context.
(Exodus 21:7-11 ESV)

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

If the slave chooses to divorce his wife he cant sell her as property but has to return her back to her family.

Still repeating the same message. Women slaves (or are they contract workers too?) are not release as male slaves are, she is her owner's property.

Quote

They are owned by there bosses by contract. they are contracted laborers, some just have ended up in having to do contracted labor because of bad things they have done or debts they have gained.

Next time your boss beats you or keeps your wife and children, you can tell yourself it's just part of the job.

Quote

'So you're comparing cruel conditions with even crueler ones, and coming to the conclusion they had it pretty good. That's some sick reasoning.'
Your logic is messed up. Woman who fought for equal wages wouldnt look down on the woman who fought for the right to vote, just because the latter had achieved more it didn't mean the former weren't ambitious and that the latter would be where they were with out the formers efforts.

You're not even making sense now. You're trying to justify slavery, no sorry, contract work as you put it, with woman who fought for rights.

Edited by Rlyeh, 22 June 2012 - 11:11 AM.

[Armchair Educated]

Rlyeh, on 22 June 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

Do you know what out of context means? It means taking selective words from a quote in a way that changes the original meaning. Now show me where I've done this, because all you've done is repeated the same message that the owner keeps the wife and children he gave his slave.


Still repeating the same message. Women slaves (or are they contract workers too?) are not release as male slaves are, she is her owner's property.


Next time your boss beats you or keeps your wife and children, you can tell yourself it's just part of the job.

You're not even making sense now. You're trying to justify slavery, no sorry, contract work as you put it, with woman who fought for rights.

Rlyeh, on 22 June 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

Do you know what out of context means? It means taking selective words from a quote in a way that changes the original meaning. Now show me where I've done this, because all you've done is repeated the same message that the owner keeps the wife and children he gave his slave.


Still repeating the same message. Women slaves (or are they contract workers too?) are not release as male slaves are, she is her owner's property.


Next time your boss beats you or keeps your wife and children, you can tell yourself it's just part of the job.

You're not even making sense now. You're trying to justify slavery, no sorry, contract work as you put it, with woman who fought for rights.

I put your quotes in context by placing them in the passage of the bible they belong to, in doing so they weren't out of context. looks like im speaking to a brick wall whats there not to get. her owners property, her owner is her father(you have a freedom to leave your parents when you come of age). if its not the masters daughter she can she leave with her husband at the end of seven years. job employment is not the same, i have more rights.
Did you know that Benjamin Franklin was a fugitive at the age of seventeen because he ran away from contracted labour  and  abraham linkin considered him self a slave to his father. you need to look up the history of workers rights.
slave isnt even translated correctly in the bible.

Slave is usually translated as eved (pronounced EH-ved), written עבד, but the word eved doesn't exactly mean slave; it means servant.

the definition of a servant

1.
a person employed by another, especially to performdomestic duties.

2.
a person in the service  of another.

3.
a person employed by the government: a public servant.

my point with the woman's rights was that getting the vote was one of the biggest achievements for woman's rights but the women of the future lived a happier existance with all the rights they had fought for since winning the vote. .
The rights for contracted servants has since been improved and now workers wouldn't be considered servants.

Im sorry if my answers haven't satisfied you but i shall waste no further time, good day to you

[Rlyeh]

Ever Learning, on 22 June 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

I put your quotes in context by placing them in the passage of the bible they belong to, in doing so they weren't out of context. looks like im speaking to a brick wall whats there not to get.

The fact you have still failed to show they were out of context, the meanings have remained the same.

Before using the "out of context" excuse find out what it means;
http://www.fallacyfi...g/quotcont.html

Quote

her owners property, her owner is her father(you have a freedom to leave your parents when you come of age).

Or who ever buys her. Apparently you don't have the freedom if you're a woman though.

Quote

if its not the masters daughter she can she leave with her husband at the end of seven years. job employment is not the same, i have more rights.

However if she was given to her husband by her owner, then her owner keeps her and any child.

Quote

Did you know that Benjamin Franklin was a fugitive at the age of seventeen because he ran away from contracted labour  and  abraham linkin considered him self a slave to his father. you need to look up the history of workers rights.

You need to stop whitewashing slavery in the Bible by pretending it's only contract work.

Quote

my point with the woman's rights was that getting the vote was one of the biggest achievements for woman's rights but the women of the future lived a happier existance with all the rights they had fought for since winning the vote. .
The rights for contracted servants has since been improved and now workers wouldn't be considered servants.

Unbelievable, you realise Exodus is set long before this? Your point is moot.
In fact I'm not sure why you continue to bring this up, as it's your claim Biblical slavery is nothing more than contract work.

Edited by Rlyeh, 22 June 2012 - 12:54 PM.

[Armchair Educated]

Are you aware that the Jews were slaves before they had servants? the word we translate as slave is actually closer to servant.

Slave is usually translated as eved (pronounced EH-ved), written עבד, but the word eved doesn't exactly mean slave; it means

servant

.

The definition of a servant is different from a slave. Slave definition :

a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.

The definition of a servant:

a person employed by another, especially to perform

domestic

duties.

2.
a person in the service  of another.

3.
a person employed by the government: a public servant.

The jews treated their servants better than the Egyptians treated their slaves. id call that progress

Edited by Ever Learning, 22 June 2012 - 01:52 PM.

[eight bits]

Quote

...  the word we translate as slave is actually closer to servant.

Slave is usually translated as eved (pronounced EH-ved), written עבד, but the word eved doesn't exactly mean slave; it means servant

OK, then, let's try it both ways. Roll Exodus 21: 21. Someone ("he") has just beaten somebody else, a man or a woman, with a rod, and the person who was beaten has died, but:

If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

If, however, the servant survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the servant is his own property.

I duuno. I think we translated things just fine the first time,